Comprehension vs Extension: a blurred distinction?
As someone laser-focused on practical benefit ثمرة of any science, hair-splitting details of logic naturally bores me. Especially when I don’t readily find real life applications of the concept in my logic text books, outside the context of theology. So I thought to make some up.
Most Arabic logic books start with مفهوم and مصداق. Mafhum is comprehension, misdaq is the application or extension of that comprehension. Differentiating btw mafhum n misdaq is important. Why?
Imagine, if sb has had a bad experience with Mercedes they can’t say that all cars are bad bcs mercedez is just one extension of car and not the car itself. In arguments, ppl tend to base their arguments on misdaq whereas they should be arguing for mafhum instead. Another example, ISIS is one misdaq of the concept of a ‘muslim/islam’ but not the concept of ‘muslim’ itself. Islam has many other masadiq/extensions that are different and better than ISIS. Hence, next time your friend goes off on a tangent like this, maybe he needs a logic primer.
Refs: (google the arabic)
مفهوم comprehension: ما حصل في الذهن. الصورة الذهنية عن الأشياء. .particular
مصداق extension: تنزيل تلك الصورة الذهنية في الواقع.universal
